TrekMovie.com: For years I have been pressuring you guys to create an animated series for Star Trek – like you and Alex did with Transformers Prime. Recently you said things are finally heating up and you even mentioned the possibility of live action Trek TV? So to clarify, there are real talks going on with regards to Star Trek on TV, both live-action and animated?

Roberto Orci: They are almost real. The relevant parties haven’t sat down in a room together, but they have sent messages through intermediaries. So after [the 2013 Star Trek sequel] comes out or as its ramping up and after the powers that be determine whether or not Star Trek is back or not – one movie doesn’t make a trend. Two movies starts to indicate that there is a trend and its viable. It will become more real as the year goes on. It is certainly more real than the first time you pressured me into talking about it.

TrekMovie.com: And just to clarify, in the past when we have discussed this the talks were within your circle of trust. Now they have expanded to include other entities, most notably CBS?

Roberto Orci: Yes. Through our agents it has been raised as a question at CBS and as a possibility with the people who are in charge of Trek. So we are thinking about it to see if there is an opportunity there.

So basically what he's saying is that when the new movie comes out next year, everyone needs to go see it multiple times, and should grab ten friends to go see it with as well, so that it will make so much money that CBS will be forced to concede that Trek is in fact popular enough to spend money for a new series that will cost them fifteen times as much to produce as a reality show would.

The thing about Moonves is that he's been given a rap that he hates Star Trek and sci-fi in general, when there's never been any proof that that's even remotely true (unless somebody knows something I don't). If he thought a new Trek or sci-fi series would make tons of money for CBS, I'm sure he'd approve one tomorrow.

The relevant parties haven’t sat down in a room together, but they have sent messages through intermediaries. So after [the 2013 Star Trek sequel] comes out or as its ramping up and after the powers that be determine whether or not Star Trek is back or not – one movie doesn’t make a trend. Two movies starts to indicate that there is a trend and its viable. It will become more real as the year goes on.

Click to expand...

Bolded emphasis mine. This makes sense. Provided ST XII does well, and I'm sure it will, I bet we'll have word on the next series before 2013 is over.

The relevant parties haven’t sat down in a room together, but they have sent messages through intermediaries. So after [the 2013 Star Trek sequel] comes out or as its ramping up and after the powers that be determine whether or not Star Trek is back or not – one movie doesn’t make a trend. Two movies starts to indicate that there is a trend and its viable. It will become more real as the year goes on.

Click to expand...

Bolded emphasis mine. This makes sense. Provided ST XII does well, and I'm sure it will, I bet we'll have word on the next series before 2013 is over.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. The economics of a live-action Trek simply don't make sense. It'll automatically be one of the most expensive shows on TV to make and it doesn't really fit CBS demographics.

Plus there's the Moonves factor. He pulled the plug on Enterprise and is noted as not being a fan of science fiction.

It doesn't really add up. Especially when CBS is making money off of Trek with little effort and not much in the way of monetary outlay. TNG season one remastered reportedly cost nine million to produce, if they keep up that rate it'll cost $72 million for 178 episodes CBS can sell over and over again. While a single new season of live Trek is liable to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $100-110 million dollars with no guarantees that the audience and advertising dollars will be there.

While I don't disagree with anything you said, if they really want to make another series, they'll find a way to do it and the bean-counters will fall in line. The bean-counters are the box. Putting forth a new series will be made possible by people who think outside of it.

I'd be surprised if the series aired on CBS.

ENT can't be used as an example for anything. Everything's changed since then. 2005 might as well be 1985. If there's potential for a new series now, then Les Moonves will put his personal tastes aside.

ENT can't be used as an example for anything. Everything's changed since then. 2005 might as well be 1985. If there's potential for a new series now, then Les Moonves will put his personal tastes aside.

Click to expand...

At possibly five million dollars an episode it'll have to be placed somewhere where as many eyeballs as possible can see it. So I think that would discount Showtime as a viable distributor. I'm not sure where else you could go with it?

When Enterprise was cancelled, UPN was only paying $800,000 an episode for it and had no viable replacement in the wings. So I wouldn't totally dismiss how Moonves treated the franchise eight years ago.

I'm still of the opinion, mine alone, that the only way Trek gets back on the air is via animation.

Plus there's the Moonves factor. He pulled the plug on Enterprise and is noted as not being a fan of science fiction.

Click to expand...

For Christ's sake - I loved Enterprise, but if Moonves "pulled the plug" on it then he did so about a year further downstream than the execs at just about any other media corporation in the world would have. The cancellation of a TV series that cost as much as that show did and was pulling as few viewers as it was is not evidence for Moonves' prejudice against anything.

^Plus, as I stated above, to my knowledge there is no evidence at all that Moonves dislikes sci-fi in general, or Trek in particular, other than the hearsay that is so frequently cited here at the TrekBBS.

^Plus, as I stated above, to my knowledge there is no evidence at all that Moonves dislikes sci-fi in general, or Trek in particular, other than the hearsay that is so frequently cited here at the TrekBBS.

Click to expand...

So we'll agree that Moonves isn't a factor, I still don't think it makes economic sense for CBS...

BillJ said:

I don't think anyone will disagree that Star Trek will be insanely expensive to produce weekly.

In order for a show that is expensive to survive, it has to be put out in a manner the maximum number of people can see it. To drive revenue. Plus, cable TV providers continue to bleed subscribers here in the U.S.

Now are you going to take and put your (depending on number of episodes) $60-110 million dollar investment on a business model that looks to be slowly dying or are you going to place it where the most people possible can see it, driving advertising revenue?

But the problem, as I see it on the outside, is live-action Star Trek 'done right' is too expensive for Netflix or Showtime to turn a profit off of (I don't believe it would drive subscriptions as those who really want to see it will either download it or wait for home video) and wouldn't draw enough viewers to justify a spot on a network line-up, especially at CBS.

I really don't see live-action Star Trek coming back anytime soon, especially with CBS making a rather large profit off their back catalog and and taking no risks with Paramount footing the bill for the motion picture franchise.

Probably really unlikely that CBS would be the ones airing it, so, wouldn't their main expense be the Pilot, and then they would shop it around, and whoever was interested would pay the licensing fee and pick up alot of the Production Budget? Or would the Production Budget still be on CBS' head?

Would it really be as much as $5M per episode? That seems kinda high considering Enterprise ended with an $800K per episode budget (Per psot above), not even 10 years ago. Sure, the Pilot would be expensive, and you'd need start costs for sets, so S1 would be pricier, but, once you get some sets built throughout S1, $5M per episode just seems really exhorbitant. Isn't CGI getting cheaper rather than more expensive?

Probably really unlikely that CBS would be the ones airing it, so, wouldn't their main expense be the Pilot, and then they would shop it around, and whoever was interested would pay the licensing fee and pick up alot of the Production Budget? Or would the Production Budget still be on CBS' head?

Would it really be as much as $5M per episode? That seems kinda high considering Enterprise ended with an $800K per episode budget (Per psot above), not even 10 years ago. Sure, the Pilot would be expensive, and you'd need start costs for sets, so S1 would be pricier, but, once you get some sets built throughout S1, $5M per episode just seems really exhorbitant. Isn't CGI getting cheaper rather than more expensive?

Click to expand...

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Enterprise was at 1.8 million an episode during season four. The $800,00 was what UPN was paying for the right to air it, which was a substantial decrease from the other three seasons.

CBS would obviously have the option of licensing Trek to another production company. But if they produce it, they would be paying the production budget but also collecting home video and syndication profits as well. But it also is a much longer cycle to get a return on thier investment.

Probably really unlikely that CBS would be the ones airing it, so, wouldn't their main expense be the Pilot, and then they would shop it around, and whoever was interested would pay the licensing fee and pick up alot of the Production Budget? Or would the Production Budget still be on CBS' head?

Would it really be as much as $5M per episode? That seems kinda high considering Enterprise ended with an $800K per episode budget (Per psot above), not even 10 years ago. Sure, the Pilot would be expensive, and you'd need start costs for sets, so S1 would be pricier, but, once you get some sets built throughout S1, $5M per episode just seems really exhorbitant. Isn't CGI getting cheaper rather than more expensive?

Click to expand...

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Enterprise was at 1.8 million an episode during season four. The $800,00 was what UPN was paying for the right to air it, which was a substantial decrease from the other three seasons.

CBS would obviously have the option of licensing Trek to another production company. But if they produce it, they would be paying the production budget but also collecting home video and syndication profits as well. But it also is a much longer cycle to get a return on thier investment.

Click to expand...

OK, so 1.8Million, and Babylon 5 got by very well on 1M per episode. How could a budget requirement raise by 150 - 200% in so short a time, when $1M - $2M per episode produced some great effects for so many years? CGI should be cheaper, or bang for buck the now then it was in the Mid 90s and early 2000s

Probably really unlikely that CBS would be the ones airing it, so, wouldn't their main expense be the Pilot, and then they would shop it around, and whoever was interested would pay the licensing fee and pick up alot of the Production Budget? Or would the Production Budget still be on CBS' head?

Would it really be as much as $5M per episode? That seems kinda high considering Enterprise ended with an $800K per episode budget (Per psot above), not even 10 years ago. Sure, the Pilot would be expensive, and you'd need start costs for sets, so S1 would be pricier, but, once you get some sets built throughout S1, $5M per episode just seems really exhorbitant. Isn't CGI getting cheaper rather than more expensive?

Click to expand...

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Enterprise was at 1.8 million an episode during season four. The $800,00 was what UPN was paying for the right to air it, which was a substantial decrease from the other three seasons.

CBS would obviously have the option of licensing Trek to another production company. But if they produce it, they would be paying the production budget but also collecting home video and syndication profits as well. But it also is a much longer cycle to get a return on thier investment.

Click to expand...

OK, so 1.8Million, and Babylon 5 got by very well on 1M per episode. How could a budget requirement raise by 150 - 200% in so short a time, when $1M - $2M per episode produced some great effects for so many years? CGI should be cheaper, or bang for buck the now then it was in the Mid 90s and early 2000s

Click to expand...

While its going to be inflated a bit due to location shooting, CSI: Miami costs $3.5 million an episode...

CBS will become interested when someone with credibility makes a viable pitch that includes a good argument for Star Trek being on Showtime, or Netflix, or sold to FX or whatever the plan is.

That's the biggest hurdle, where is it going to go and why should CBS believe it will make enough money to be worth bothering with? I'm sure there are many different ways a viable pitch could be constructed. Someone just needs to decide on a plan and pitch it.

Waiting to confirm that the second movie is a hit, is a good plan. That will make the case to CBS better than anything else I can envision. Everyone buy ten tickets apiece, even if the damn thing is about Khan!